Press Conference in Oklahoma City On Thursday To Shine Spotlight On Notorious Holocaust Revisionist and Hate Group Leader Scott Lively

Elevating Unity and Love Over Divisiveness and Hate is the Goal of Diverse Coalition of Local Faith Leaders, Community Advocates, and Experts

What: A diverse coalition of local faith leaders, community advocates, and national experts will hold a press conference on Thursday, April 26 to spotlight the hateful and divisive career of Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, author of the discredited book The Pink Swastika, which blames the Holocaust on gay people. The coaltion was compelled to mobilize and speak out after Oklahoma City’s Draper Park Christian Church unwisely invited Lively to preach to the congregation on April 27-29. Lively’s ministry, Abiding Truth is recognized as an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“Elevating unity and love over divisiveness and hate is our goal,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen, who will speak at the press conference. “It is critical that we put a bright spotlight on Scott Lively’s reprehensible record so people understand that he is a Holocaust revisionist. Far from being the moral leader that he presents himself to be, Lively is notorious and widely discredited for cynically twisting one of the world’s most horrific historical events for political gain.”

Additionally, there will be an open community meeting broadcast live from Church of the Open Arms.

What: Live-Audience edition of Oklahoma: Inside Out called “Speaking Only The Truth”

When: Friday, April 27, 7-8:30 P.M.

Who: Scott J. Hamilton, Cimarron Alliance, show host
Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out
Michael Kornblit, author of Until We Meet Again: A True Story of Love and Survival in the Holocaust
Pastor Neill Spurgeon, an evangelical minister who suffered at the hands of the “ex-gay” industry and today suffers PTST as a result

There will also be a time of reflective prayer:

What: Supportive churches will have their doors open for a time of personal prayer; individuals are asked to reflect on the importance of truth.

When: Saturday, April 28, 9AM-Noon

Background: Lively first came into the public eye twenty years ago in Oregon as an activist in the Oregon Citizens Alliance, which worked to pass anti-gay laws. Lively, a “Holocaust revisionist,” co-authored The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party in 2002. According to the authors:

“The Pink Swastika will show that there was far more brutality, torture, and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi deviants and homosexuals than there ever was against homosexuals.”

In February 2009, Lively took his teachings to Family Life Network (FLN) in Uganda. For three days he exploited Ugandan fears with his outlandish lies: gays are child molesters, they recruit children, they were Hitler’s henchmen in the Holocaust because “gay men are exceptionally brutal and savage,” their intention is to overtake society and destroy the family, and the only hope (besides imprisonment) is to get them into conversion facilities to make them straight. Within one month of the conference, FLN was quoting Lively’s work and calling for mass arrests of gay and transgender people. The very next month Ugandan Parliament leader, David Bahati, introduced a bill to strengthen Uganda’s law against homosexuality to include arrest and even death.

Lively is currently active in Eastern Europe, Moldova, and Russia bringing them the same strain of anti-gay teaching he once exported to Uganda.

About the Author

Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Related Posts

98 Comments

Richard RushApril 27, 2012 at 9:20 am -

Tim W said to Dan, “You seem on a crusade on pornography. Why are you censoring that? Shouldn’t pornographers be allowed to have their work in libraries?”

I’ve been wondering the same thing. We know that many children have been severely damaged, with some driven to suicide, as a result of hate speech directly from bigots, and indirectly from people such as Lively who perpetuate a climate of bigotry. Does anyone have statistics on the damage and suicides suffered by children as a result of catching a glimpse of pornography?

It’s so convenient to trot out the mantra of “free speech” when it suits one’s purposes.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 9:26 am -

No Dan you are not defending free speech. You are defending a right to a platform which is not given anwhere. You are doing this for the sake of a bigot who is currently attemtping to commit genocide. We are judged by our associations.

@Paul Mc, don’t put words in my mouth. I know very little of Scott Lively, relatively speaking, and my comments have to do with free speech. As to your substitute Jew idea, that’s false; example: you’ve got openly anti-Semitic Media Matters for America calling some Americans “Israel firsters” and no one says a peep.

I’ll go further. On my library blog I occasionally support LGBT causes where they intersect with library issues. And I openly support all authors, including those who write on LGBT issues and those who are themselves gay.

Because of my experience being attacked by self-arrogated free speech advocates for pointing out how case law and national polls show children should not have access to sexually explicit material, I’m not surprised that I’m getting attacked here for standing up for free speech as well. Your problem is you assume I’ll be intimidated by your ad hominem arguments. Give it up, it won’t work on me.

@Tim W, this is a blog having comments. If I ignored your posts, it’s simply an artifact of this being a blog having comments and all that that entails.

As to the KKK, that is an organization proven in a court of law to be what it is. Of course the KKK opinion on race relations is silly, especially in light of the court decisions. Scott Lively runs an organization proven in the court of the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a “hate” group. Color me unimpressed. SPLC used to be interested in various rights–now it uses its weight to bully people. Someone is suing Scott Lively now. Why don’t we all wait for the outcome of that case before going on the attack.

I am not on a crusade on pornography. I am informing people how they are being misinformed by the American Library Association. I do this by pointing out what others have said about the issue. For example, the author of the act the ALAs fool people into not following has written about how the ALA fools people into not following his law. And the issue is porn in public libraries, not porn. If you haven’t figured that out, it’s no surprise to me you cannot figure out what’s going on here.

Uh, no. Pornographers have no right to have their work displayed in libraries. I like when you make such a statement, however, because then people can judge for themselves how much weight to give to your arguments.

In the meantime, not a single person here has addressed the issue I raised, without shouting or attacking, of TWO making a statement that sounded a little like a threat to free speech. How about this: “Hi, Dan Kleinman, I’m Mr. Besen. Regarding that statement on your claim that it appears to be a threat to free speech, I disagree with you because…. [or] I agree with you because…” You know, something like that. Instead its just Scott Lively this, Scott Lively that. Irrelevant.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 9:47 am -

No Dan. Your comments have nothing to do with free speech. The freedom to a platform is not provided anywhere and yet here you are crusading to make one available to someone who is actively working to commit genocide.

The SPLC is of course still interested in people’s rights. But since they care about the rights of people you clearly don’t want to have them given your defense of someone trying to commit genocide against that group, it’s obvious why you need to lie about them.

RainbowPhoenix, I have not defended Scott Lively here. But you illustrate the obfuscation, Scott Lively this, Scott Lively that. Irrelevant.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 10:10 am -

You’ve done nothing but defend Scott Lively. You’ve done everything you can to paint him as the victim of some sort of violation of his rights because he’s not being given free rein to spout his genocidal hatred from wherever he wants and trying to hide it behind “free speech” even no one is actually preventing him from speaking.

Richard RushApril 27, 2012 at 10:20 am -

Dan used the commonly cited limit on free speech: “Free speech should be for everyone, except for cases such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” I don’t support that freedom, either. But assuming this is meant literally, let’s take a closer look:

Building codes regulate the units of egress required for the orderly evacuation of buildings. The higher the occupancy, the more units of egress required. That, combined with the fact that people would not be smelling smoke or seeing flame, yelling “FIRE” falsely seems unlikely to produce panic that could cause injury. The incident would certainly be inconvenient, but that’s about it.

The force-feeding of hate speech to vulnerable people by bullies has certainly caused much lasting psychological injury to many, whereas falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater seems likely to be little more than an inconvenience.

My issue with “freedom of speech” is not with the freedom to express one’s beliefs/ideas/opinions, it’s with the assumed freedom to force-feed that speech to people who don’t want to listen to it, and the assumed entitlement to a platform via media outlets. If pro-gay groups can convince a media outlet to deny a platform to Scott Lively, that’s not censorship, it’s freedom of speech at work.

Until the government bans Lively from expressing his beliefs/ideas/opinions, he still has his coveted freedom of speech.

On the other hand, you keep talking about his genocidal tendencies. You repeat it over and over as if that makes it true. That doesn’t even make sense to me. Genocide is when you kill an entire ethnic group or nation. I’ve heard no news about that w.r.t. gays, except how they get slaughtered in various communities in certain Middle Eastern area countries.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 10:41 am -

Dan your issue is defending Scott Lively using free speech as an excuse, conveniently revealing your total ignorance of what free speech is.

As for Lively’s genocidal leanings, do a basic search on what Uganda’s trying to do and Lively’s part in pushing things that far.

This does give cause for concern, however: “If pro-gay groups can convince a media outlet to deny a platform to Scott Lively, that’s not censorship, it’s freedom of speech at work.” I think that’s what Sola Scriptura was decrying above w.r.t. the “After the Ball” book. I think that’s called propaganda, not freedom of speech. I’ll agree it is not true censorship.

justmeApril 27, 2012 at 10:45 am -

My first reaction to the ongoing online conversation with the guy pretending to be interested in defending free speech is to wonder why everybody is feeding the troll.

My second reaction is the longer you keep him here doing this is less time he has to be doing any actual harm anywhere else.

Ignoramus. Troll. All for mentioning a book someone else listed here. Nice.

Look at Richard Rush and others like him. His conversation is based on issues, not personal attacks. I know you see the difference, I’m just sorry you have not yet figured out such conversation is far more effective in the truth wins out department.

@ RainbowPhoenix Funny! I told you you’d keep that up! Funny! Say, do you have a web site explaining your view? I’d like to see that.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 11:14 am -

So you come here, screaming about how victimized the bigots are because they’re not being allowed to scream through whatever platform they want without the mean gays challenging them, and you try to claim that you don’t actually know what the people you’re defending are saying. The onus is on you to do your homework before you try to debate people. If you are unwilling to examine other people’s claims on your own simply because they disagree with you, than we are under no obligation to do your work for you. But since we have done our homework, we will continue to criticize your defense of someone actively working to commit genocide.

@RainbowPhoenix, I’ve done no screaming, other than quoting Gary (NJ). I think further discussion with you is useless.

“If you are unwilling to examine other people’s claims….” I asked for your web site so I can view it, and you don’t even provide that. Then you come back and say I am unwilling to examine other people’s claims. Unbelievable. I give up on you.

And you keep repeating that genocide theme of yours. Sheesh. I am certain you are not a representative of TWO, neither are you representative of TWO.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 11:40 am -

Except for all the screaming about how Lively and his fellow bigots are victims of the mean gays trying to silence them.

You should have done your homework on the people you so zealously defend before you came here to defend them. You could have done a search on this very website and found Lively’s invovlement in Uganda as well as links to other sites documenting the same. But for some reason you didn’t even try. We are under no obligation to do your work for you.

If you are abonding any attempts at even defending yourself and your beloved Scott Lively, then it is an admission on your part that you do not actually have an arguement to make.

@Peter Hargmier, I fail to see where I lept to Scott Lively’s defense. I have said, instead, that he is irrelevant to the free speech issues I raised.

Let me be clear I am not defending Scott Lively.

I also believe in waiting for the outcome of legal activity before finding a man guilty. And a case has been filed against Scott Lively. Innocent until proven guilty. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the Scott Lively case, precisely because of the free speech issues involved, and not because of support or lack thereof for the individual speaker.

Tim WApril 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm -

@Dan- Again court cases have nothing to do with it. If the KKK never got convicted of violence in court but spouted the rhetoric they did would you say that people should not speak up and ask that they not be invited to speak their hate. It has nothing to do with whether it is legal it is whether their speech could incite harm to others.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 12:10 pm -

Dan you’ve done nothing but defend Scott Lively. You’ve spent this whole time defending his supposed right to spout his genocidal hatred from whichever platform he wants, dressing it up as “free speech”.

@Tim W said, “It has nothing to do with whether it is legal it is whether their speech could incite harm to others.” I understand that. I just can’t tell whether his speech could incite harm to others for a variety of reasons, including a lack of news stories on any dead victims blamed on Scott Lively who where not killed via ordinary means. Only SPLC is making such claims, and anyone basing their claims on SPLC, such as the party bringing suit against Scott Lively, though I have not read much of the complaint. But I am willing to let a court make that determination.

Like in the Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley hoax. Al Sharpton made speeches that resulted in the death of people (person?), among other things. A court found Sharpton had faked things, etc. Thanks to that court case, I now know Sharton had faked things, etc. And he’s a newscaster now and leading White House functions.

Remember if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit?

Well, I would like to wait for the outcome of the court case. Scott Lively or Al Sharpton makes no difference to the issues involved. I’d defend free speech w.r.t. Al Sharpton in the same circumstances as apply here to Scott Lively. The alternative is to take the rhetoric of RainbowPhoenix and start screaming Scott Lively is a genocidal murderer over and over again.

Back to the issue I raised originally, the key phrase in TWO’s message, “unwisely invited Lively to preach,” sounds to me like a warning to others not to let someone speak. Mr. Besen, care to comment?

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm -

So you still haven’t done your homework Dan. That or you honestly don’t have a problem with Uganda’s current efforts to wipe out their gay citizens due to Lively’s efforts.

Dan shut the (expletive removed) up about the SPLC “bullying people”. It’s gay children that are literally dying from being bullied at the encouragement of people like Scott Lively. Calling people out on lying, fearmongering, and abuse is not bullying. That asinine idea is one of the main reasons it’s still such a problem for anyone. I’m starting to wonder if you were a bully in school and flipped out when one of your victims stood up to you instead of rolling over and taking it like a good little inferior as you clearly think we should do with bigots like Lively.

Tim WApril 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm -

@Dan- Again you seem to skirt the issue. So would you or would you not encourage people to invite the grand wizard of the KKK to speak even if members of their group had never been convicted of a crime? Scott Lively’s speech and actions have led to an atmosphere of violence against GLBT people just the same as the rhetoric of the KKK has led to violence against minorities. One cannot get a pass and the other be codemned. Why are you so willing to defend Lively and his speech but not defend the KKK and their speech?? The fall back to well let’s see what a civil trial finds just doesn’t cut it.

Richard RushApril 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm -

Dan, do you see it as a mark of honor and principle that you are ignorant about Scott Lively, or do you just fake the ignorance because it somehow becomes more palatable to be a free speech purist in his defense?

RainbowPhoenix is absolutely correct about Lively. I’ve been following him for years, and he is easily a top contender as the creepiest of the creepy creeps out there. He promotes programs that would logically lead to genocide while he pays tepid lip service to denying it.

Maybe you’re not the free speech purist you pretend to be, so maybe you really believe that Lively’s voice is a particularly important one to be heard.

You need to understand that most of us gay people have been exposed to relentless bigotry all our lives (especially those as old as me – 67), and we are no longer willing to be intimidated. We didn’t get where we are today by appeasing the bigots for the last forty years.

And as an aside, if you are a free speech purist, what is wrong with some so-called porn in libraries?

BeckyApril 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm -

Dan Kleinman, I no longer have any interest in dealing with you. First you stated that TWO threated to “punish” people for allowing Scott Lively to speak (how, exactly would they do that? TWO is not a government agency, all they could do is show that Lively is incorrect) and then you say you’re not interested in finding out what Lively says. The “free speech” you keep harping on is meaningless if no one can say that Lively is lying and that he should not be treated as an expert. Your whole resistance to actually doing any research makes me doubt your crediblity. You say you’re a research guy but everything you write gives lie to that. I no longer have any faith that you are not operating on an agenda.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 3:01 pm -

Dan Kleinman, I’m afraid I see a pattern. You claim that Media Matters (anti-Semitic? Really?), SPLC and TWO are censoring others (again, none of these groups are government agencies), but what these groups all do is fact check and make available what those like Scott Lively say and why what they say is wrong. But, what else do these groups have in common? They are all socially liberal. You wear your ignorance of what Lively says as a badge of honor but I suspect you’re not really as ignorant of what he says as you claim. There is nothing wrong with calling attention to fraudulent claims and asking that those fraudulent claims not be presented as fact. Freedom of speech is damaged by lies–but you’re less concerned with truth than you are with biased rightist groups being able to lie without being called on it.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm -

Sola, you are really dishonest. When was the “debate” ever about “homosexual practices” on this subject–especially considering Scott Lively is in the title and “homosexual practices” is not. As for your info on GRIDS–did you just find that out? Are you so ignorant of history that this was new information to you?

@Tim W, I would not. That organization has been proven in a court of law to be what it is. Scott Lively has not, on the other hand. That’s key the difference, among many others. There is an ongoing case on the issue so I see no reason to declare him guilty on my own. I’d prefer to wait until the case is over and all appeals have been exhausted.

“The fall back to well let’s see what a civil trial finds just doesn’t cut it.” Well then, for you it’s guilty until proven innocent. That’s your problem, not mine.

I have a tough time believing any court will hold him responsible for what happened in Uganda, particularly where he told the Ugandans not to go down the path they did. Of course if enough people do what’s happening here on this TWO blog post, then justice is irrelevant and Scott Lively is guilty. Then its not TWO, it SWO, or Shouting Wins Out.

And I’m not defending Scott Lively–I’m just pointing out the free speech issues involved vis-a-vis the SPLC and what Wayne Besen said here as well.

@Richard Rush said, “Dan, do you see it as a mark of honor and principle that you are ignorant about Scott Lively, or do you just fake the ignorance because it somehow becomes more palatable to be a free speech purist in his defense?” Scott Lively is not the issue. I have come to realize that for most of the people responding here, Scott Lively is the issue and that he is a genocidal maniac. If I knew people here were like that and could care less about the free speech issues, I might have moved on without commenting. The bullying is sort of an effective way of censoring, in a way. I’m just not intimidated in the slightest so I keep trying to have a discussion on the free speech issues despite the “jamming” going on. You, Richard Rush, were reasoned before. Now I see you have joined the RainbowPhoenixes of the world.

Richard said, “He promotes programs that would logically lead to genocide while he pays tepid lip service to denying it.” Well that’s interesting. RainbowPhoenix says he already is genocidal, and you say he might become genocidal. That opens a whole other can of worms related to genetic disposition toward crime and whether those people genetically disposed should be incarcerated or killed before they have a chance to commit a crime. But let’s not go there. The point is one guy say he’s a murderer, another says he might become a murder, and I say let’s wait for a court to decide.

Richard said, “You need to understand that most of us gay people have been exposed to relentless bigotry all our lives (especially those as old as me – 67), and we are no longer willing to be intimidated.” I completely understand that. To that end I sometimes work to help gay people, even at your age. Actually, I sometimes work to help all people without caring if the are gay or not or have any other particular characteristic. I understand attacking Scott Lively under the circumstances you have provided. But it does no one any good to find him guilty until proven innocent.

What if the court rules his speech was perfectly within the law? How will you all look if you all adjudge him guilty before the trial even happened? The next time you address an issue, will people take you seriously, or will they say ‘there they go again’?

I see absolutely no harm in waiting until the completion of the trial. So tell me, what is the harm in waiting until the completion of the trial?

Richard said, “And as an aside, if you are a free speech purist, what is wrong with some so-called porn in libraries?” I would be happy to explain. Note that the issue is porn on public library computers. Courts have addressed these issues and determined that blocking porn entails no First Amendment or freedom of speech concerns. That right there answers your question–there are no freedom of speech concerns in blocking porn from public library computers. But I’ll go further. The US Supreme Court found that public libraries are not open public fora where anything goes. Rather, they are quasi public fora where the government was every right to filter out porn. For details, see Library Porn Removal Roadmap: http://tinyurl.com/ALADogma And please consider following my SafeLibraries blog if your interests are free speech, etc. And occasionally you’ll even find I discuss an LGBT issue when it intersects the library world. Feel free to comment on my blog, just know if the comments are predominantly ad hominem in nature, I’ll remove them. Nobody really wants to see a huge stream of silly ad hominem argument like has occurred here.

@Becky said, “Your whole resistance to actually doing any research makes me doubt your credibility.” Fine. It’s not resistance, it’s just that I don’t care about Scott Lively and the Pink Swastika. Further, the matter is in the hands of a court of law. I am perfectly willing to let the court do all the fact finding. I’ll admit the court will do a far better job as well. Patience, Becky. If he’s found guilty and appeals have been exhausted, I’ll be on your side.

@Daniel, you are putting words in my mouth about TWO. As to MMfA, some author/Harvard law professor of note just said MMfA is anti-Semitic. Others have as well. And no, it’s never go to a court of law. As to SPLC, I have a lot of knowledge in that organization from a while back, but it’s fading and I cannot find the quote that supports me despite looking for it. So I’ll admit my argument is weak in that area.

You went on about “rightist groups” but I only addressed the single phrase that Wayne Besen said here. I also said I would act the same way if Al Sharpton was under the same circumstances as Scott Lively. You conveniently left that out. I raised the TWO issue in the context of the SPLC bullying, and I only mentioned MMfA way down in response to something. You whip that up into something sinister based on our conversation here and, I guess, your own prejudices. Fine, do that, but you mischaracterized what I said and came to the wrong conclusion.

Many of you adjudge others guilty until proven innocent. What did that singer say? “That don’t impress me much.” I’ll bet it doesn’t impress anyone else much either.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm -

Dan Kleinman, Scott Lively has been proven to use false studies and misrepresent good studies–that’s proven so to claim it isn’t is just not true. You called Media Matters an anti-semitic group (with nothing to back that up) so I don’t think I’m putting words in your mouth and now you’re trying to turn it on me and say it’s my prejudices rather than your own at question–that’s a pretty usual method for right wing apologists. And your repeated claims that it’s not about Lively are also suspect–looking at your website I think it’s pretty clear you are coming at this as an agenda and you are using “freedom of speech” as an excuse to try to smear fact checking groups. In fact, you are trying to silence these liberal groups and are therefore trying to interfere with their freedom of speech. Shame on you.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 5:26 pm -

And Dan, what singer are you talking about? Your posts here don’t seem to have impressed anyone. You see, unlike yourself, we actually know what Scott Lively says–I know you don’t want to be burdened with things like facts and truth–but those things do matter to those of us who are actually effected by Scott Lively’s lies.

You’ve posted and posted and posted and no one has come over to your side. No one is fooled by your supposed quest to protect free speech–and you still haven’t addressed the fact that no one has a right to appear on television. No one is silencing Scott Lively or trying to censor him. You keep going on and on about this but you’re really just twisting in the wind and all the readers of this site see it.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm -

Dan, to come on a gay site and say that a group defending gay rights against the lies of Scott Lively is “bullying” is truly offensive.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm -

There are no free speech issues here Dan. Freedom of speech does not include the right to whatever platform the speaker wants. So you have been doing nothing but defend Scott Lively even when told the things he’s done.

Scott Lively’s interference is one of the main reasons Uganda went as far as it did. If he really did try to convince them not to, it was only a cheap ex post facto platitude. It doesn’t change the fact that he went in and convinced them that gay people need to be wiped out than bragged about it until the blowback started. And you’ve admitted that you don’t care. Do you realize that? You admitted that you don’t care about attempted genocide.

And again SHUT THE (expletive removed) UP about the SPLCs alleged “bullying”. Gay children are litterally being bullied to death (at the encouragement of your beloved Scott Lively no less) and you try to use that to score cheap points because someone you like is being called out for the liar and the bigot he is? Shame on you. Calling a liar a liar is not bullying. Saying liars should not have a platform to spew their hatred is not bullying. STANDING UP TO BULLYING IS NOT BULLYING. Your perpetuation of that asinine makes you complicit in the epidemic of bullycide that is being inflicted thanks to your beloved Scott Lively. Your hands are covered in innocent blood and you don’t care. Not as long as you and your fellow bigots like Scott Lively get to keep spewing lies and attempting to bring about our destruction get to keep doing so unchallenged.

bpoilApril 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm -

When has SPLC, TWO or Media Matters ever stopped anyone from speaking? Scott Lively (and this library guy) have websites they can distribute their opinions. Not being invited on to a mainstream news program is not the same as being silenced. I’ve never been on the news and I haven’t been silenced. And for the most part, most of us, if we called the networks and asked to go on the news they would say “no.” And for someone who has supposedly been silenced Scott Lively continues to say a whole lot of crap.

Proven to use false studies is different from proven to be a genocidal maniac. If you use false studies, are you a genocidal maniac? If so, there are hundreds of thousands of genocidal maniacs running around.

As to “smearing fact checking groups,” I have no idea what you are talking about. I came to discuss TWO free speech issues. I did so in the context of SPLC’s bullying of groups it calls “hate” groups. I mentioned MMfA in the context of answering someone’s question. I’m not “smearing fact checking groups.” And MMfA is not a “fact checking group” anyway–it is a political organization. It seeks, among others things, to silence the entire FOX News network.

“In fact, you are trying to silence these liberal groups….” Now you are saying I’m stupid. I’d be stupid to think I could “silence these liberal groups,” and based on a few blog comments here, no less! I can see the headlines now: “Dan Silences Liberal Groups in TWO Blog Comments”! Get serious.

“You’ve posted and posted and posted and no one has come over to your side.” I think it is clear to anyone interested in having a conversation here that if you do not hold the opinion that Scott Lively is a genocidal maniac, you will be attacked relentlessly by a crowd of people all making things up about you. Gee, I wonder why no one is commenting here. Anyone wish to comment? Of course not–I don’t blame you.

You know, I had no idea about TWO and about the commenters here. I guess I am stupid because I thought I could raise a free speech issue and get a civil response. I’ll not likely write on any more TWO blogs or whatever. I know Wayne Besen is not responsible for the viciousness of the attacks here, but I’ll avoid such mean-spirited people in the future. There, you won, you silenced another voice. I’ll just write on this one blog post further, and that’s it for me. You’re interested in blood, not in truth. Here its blood wins out, not truth wins out. What a joke.

Shania Twain – That Don’t Impress Me Much

I’ve known a few guys who thought they were pretty smart
But you’ve got being right down to an art
You think you’re a genius-you drive me up the wall
You’re a regular original, a know-it-all
Oh-oo-oh, you think you’re special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you’re something else
….
Okay, so what do you think you’re Elvis or something…
Oo-Oh-Oh
That don’t impress me much!

Daniel said, “No one is silencing Scott Lively or trying to censor him.” No, that is not true. That is why I wrote here in the first place. The SPLC is attempting to silence someone or try to censor him, or whatever it is when your stated purpose for creating a list of “hate” groups is to get the media to stop calling on the members of that group.

And there goes RainbowPhoenix with his bigot stuff again.

@bpoil said, “When has SPLC, TWO or Media Matters ever stopped anyone from speaking?” I never said TWO did that. As to SPLC, one of its leaders said that was the purpose of creating the “hate” groups list. As to MMfA, I never said they stopped anyone from speaking, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Were they not high fiving each other when they got broadcasters taken off the air?

“Not being invited on to a mainstream news program is not the same as being silenced.” Absolutely correct. But that’s not the issue. The SPLC pulls a lot of weight in the hate group area. For it to add “hate” groups to its list of existing, actual hate groups, and for its leader to state it did this to get other media to stop writing about the “hate” groups, that is completely different from not being invited to speak by media. Completely different. And wrong, even if it is not strictly censorship.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm -

No Dan. Going to a foreign country to convince its leaders that a certain group within that country needs to be wiped out makes a person genocidal.

No you did not come here to discuss a free speech issue because there is no free speech issue to discuss. Your only purpose here is to argue that a genocidal bigot has a right spew his lies and hatred from any platform he wishes unchallenged. You’ve also accused TWO and the SPLC as wanting to “silence” people; that is a smear.

You’re projecting. Pointing out your own arguments and associations is not “making things up” about you. Unlike your characterization of TWO and the SPLC as “bullies” trying to “silence dissent”.

You are not getting a civil response because you are not being civil. There is no free speech issue and yet you use that as an excuse to defend a genocidal bigot’s right to whatever platform he desires to spew his hatred from. Typical bully; “Wha! They’re not letting me be mean to them!” No one is silencing you either. It’s your choice to run away because we’re not rolling over like good little inferiors as you think we should do to Scott Lively. We’re interested in nothing but the truth. That’s why you’ve been called out on your lack of it.

Once again, no one is trying to silence Lively. People are being told that he is a lying, genocidal, hatemonger that should not be treated as if he has anything legitimate to add to their platform. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to a platform and no amount of screaming will change that.

Yes you did claim that TWO is “silencing” people and it’s no more true than it is about the SPLC.

Yes the issue is about not being invited on mainstreem news. You’ve hidden behind “free speech” to complain about your beloved Lively not being given any platform he wants. That is not censorship and it is not wrong.

And again SHUT UP ABOUT BULLYING. STANDING UP TO A BULLY IS NOT BULLYING. You are to blame for the epidemic of bullycides due to your perpetuation of that asinine myth. You and your beloved Scott Lively are bullies. It is not bullying to stand up to you. Your hands are covered in the blood of innocent gay teenagers who have been bullied to death because of your beloved Scott Lively. You don’t care though. All you care about is that your beloved Scott Lively gets to continue his efforts to commit genocide against gay people from whatever platform he wants without being challenged or criticized.

Okay, there’s hard evidence of SPLC seeking to silence people, then those people got silenced.

Now that’s a free speech issue.

And TWO made that statement that sounded like the “fascist” SPLC, as said in the video I just linked. And I legitimately raised that issue here, which has nothing to do with Scott Lively other than the TWO statement was made in the context of Scott Lively. Lot’s of hot air here but absolutely no substantive response. None.

Wayne Besen, will you respond? Will you retract or reword your subtle warning on the free speech issue I raised?

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm -

Dan, you use an article with a quote by Alan Deshowitz that refers to him as a “liberal” as the entire backup for claiming Media Matters is anti-semitic? I don’t think so.

And you have no idea about so many things that you really should do research before you start just randomly posting things. The people on this site know far more about Scott Lively than you. The people on this site also know that this isn’t a free speech issue.

Free speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want and no one else can question what you say and point out your errors. Free speech doesn’t mean you get to go on tv claiming to be an expert when you are not and no one gets to say that you are a fraud.

No one has–or even can stop Scott Lively from spewing his hate–but they can inform the ignorant media that, just like you, treats all opinions no matter how informed and ignorant equally, that this particular person that they’ve labeled as an expert is not who he claims to be.

And if you’re thinking people on this site are unimpressed by me–I think you really need to get wise. We know what we’re talking about and have actually taken the trouble to find out what’s going on. You haven’t. You’re ignorant of the facts and you seem to be proud of that fact. I don’t praise ignorance.

RainbowPhoenixApril 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm -

We’ve been over this Dan. Not giving a person a platform is not “silencing” them. If they are not being silenced, than it is not a free speech issue.

You did not raise any “free speech issue” because there was none to be raised. You simply jumped in and defending someone actively working to commit genocide and got called out on it and your misrepresentations. The responses you got are much more substantive than any of your claims, especially since you admitted you had no interest in researching the person you’re defending.

DanielApril 27, 2012 at 7:40 pm -

Dan, you are really looking like a fool. The Lou Dobbs–still not a free speech issue. Lou Dobbs still speaks his mind on Fox News-no one has a right to a television contract. If we did we’d all be much better paid.

BeckyApril 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm -

Funny how Dan Kleinman keeps saying these things are “subtle warnings”. They’re so subtle that Dan Kleinman’s the only one who sees them. They’re so subtle they don’t exist.

Get to Know Us

Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights the "ex-gay" myth and antigay religious extremism.

TWO monitors anti-LGBT organizations, documents their lies and exposes wrongdoing. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for truth, integrity, and equality for sexual minorities.